Barack Obama “Fired up, ready to go” Join a Cult?

Barack Obama gave another impassioned speech the day before the election trying to inspire people to go to the polls, talking about a local South Carolina leader who worked close to the residents and was able to inspire them with her charisma. she worked to "establish after school programs for the community's youth, offer holiday meals for the unemployed and provide school supplies for underprivileged young people," which is of course great.

And if Obama's version of this is close to the truth part of the way she was able to do this was with her inspirational speaking skills; however as the saying goes “Everything is good in moderation" including inspirational speaking, which won't help if it's not followed up with productive policies or if it is followed up with one broken promise after another.

Obama retells his ‘Fired up, Ready to go!’ story at Clinton rally 11/07/2016

“I’m trying to muster myself up, make the best of this. Suddenly I hear this voice from the back, just shout: “Fired up!” And everybody in the room says: “Fired up!” And then I hear the voice say, “Ready to go!” And everybody in the room says, “Ready to go” and I don’t know what’s going on.

I think these people are crazy. Maybe I shouldn’t have come here.

And then I look in the back of the room. And there’s this middle-aged woman and she’s dressed like she just came from church. She’s got a big church hat. And she’s got, I think a gold tooth. It turns out she holds a position in the local NAACP office and also I’m not kidding you is a private detective.

This is a true story, she’s like a private eye, although it’s hard to think that you wouldn’t see her coming. She’s very colorful, and she’s grinning at me. And apparently, she is known wherever she goes by saying this chant: “Fired up.” And everybody knows her, so they know that when she says “fired up” they’ve got to say “fired up” and when she says “ready to go” everybody’s got to say “ready to go.”

This is what she does every meeting she goes to she does this thing, which is kind of strange. So the thing is though she keeps on doing it. “Fired up, fired up, ready to go, ready to go.” But the interesting thing is after a while, I’m starting to get kind of fired up. I’m starting to feel like I’m ready to go. And all those negative thoughts and all those bad memories start drifting away.” Complete article

This psychological manipulation tactic was partially described in one of the leaked E-Mails, RE: Follow Up 05/22/2016 Getting out the Latino Vote in 2016 and Beyond and an attachment with research into how they respond to campaign outreaches, honest of not. This document claims that 'Hispanics are the most responsive to “story telling”: Brands need to “speak with us.”' It's not just Hispanics that they try to use “story telling” to inspire and create an emotional attachment to without addressing many of the most important issues; and this is another clear example of how they're doing it.



This may be great salesmanship but when they gradually take away all the attempts to address legitimate issues and there's nothing left but lies and broken promises about "hope and change" people are going to figure out something is wrong, even if many of the people don't do as well sorting through all the news to figure out what it is and what better options are available.

Hillary Clinton also demonstrated her “story telling” skills throughout the campaign trail including a few days after the convention and only about a week after this document was disclosed when she described how she worked for her father4 and went through all the details about the work as if she spent plenty of time doing labor work. It wasn't the first time she used this story telling tactic to try to make people feel like she was one of them she once said, “One of the best jobs I had to prepare me to be president was sliming fish in Alaska.” What she failed to mention is that Hillary Clinton fired from fish-sliming job within a week for asking too many questions.

Her story telling skills might be more effective if she wasn't constantly getting caught lying, often when she should have known much better and doesn't even do a good job at it.

In 2008 Barack Obama won the nomination against Hillary Clinton because he had a much more progressive record and he was able to show that Hillary Clinton was the one that supported wars based on lies and the corporate agenda globalizing trade without protecting workers rights and many other things. He promised he wouldn't hire any lobbyists in his cabinet; that he would protect workers and even "put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and march with them as president; that he would seek environmental protection in his trade deals that he would close Guantanamo Bay, which was a clear violation of international law and the constitution and many more things.

Clearly he was a much better candidate than Hillary Clinton who had a track record of opposing all these positions, even if she claimed to support them during her campaign.

This is how he won; and if he followed through on some of his promises his legacy would have been the greater of any president in decades or longer.

Of course he broke almost all his promises and on the rare occasion, like the Keystone Pipeline where he actually kept it at least for now, it was only after indicating that he was ready to cave to bossiness interests and the grassroots mounted enormous protests to pressure to keep at least one or two of his promises.

When the Wisconsin protest took place he was amazingly silent avoiding any discussion of "comfortable shoes" which he probably wore while meeting with all the lobbyists he promised never to hire. He fell for an incredibly pathetic argument that it was unconstitutional to close Guantanamo without permission from Congress.

Activities going on at Guantanamo were blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions which he was required to obey by the Constitution and the Constitution also bans imprisonment without trial or even charges, although they claim this only applies to citizens not enemy combatants. Even if you accept that non-citizens aren't protected by this clause in the Constitution, perhaps on technical grounds lawyers often use to win their arguments, it is a blatant violation of the intent of the Constitution and basic democratic principles and decency.

He had Insurance lobbyists which he promised never to hire write his so-called "Affordable Care Act;" and he became the leading cheerleader for the Trans Pacific trade agreement which was negotiated in secret, and Hillary Clinton called it the "Gold Standard" before she realized it wasn't in her political interests to support it and he broke so many other promises that I can't keep track of them all.

If some people still approve of his presidency it's hard to imagine it's because he kept his promises, since he didn't and those that do their own research instead of falling for emotional appeal know it!

Then he wanted us to support Hillary Clinton, who he rightly pointed out was a corporate puppet in 2008 and, if anything it is much more obvious now, assuming anyone checks the news, especially if they use alternative media outlets. Her record was incredibly corrupt and this was clear to those who checked the news even before the first round of leaks from the DNC just before the convention, but after all the leaks along with the renewed investigation about he E-Mail from the FBI there should have been no doubt that she couldn't have been trusted.

He had plenty of chance to call for a different nominee who represented the people but instead be blatantly sided with those who were rigging the primaries.

Why is it that he "really really wants" us to help him elect Hillary Clinton? Because it will insult his legacy? Does he think he has a legacy that is worth defending?

No one did more to insult Obama's legacy than Barack Obama himself by betraying almost every promise he made then colluding with the other Democrats to nominate an incredibly corrupt candidate who obviously flip flopped on almost every issue just before the campaign and can't seem to stop herself from lying all the time.

Is he trying to turn this country into a cult where all the people decide which lying charismatic speaker they should follow behind without checking facts?

Political operatives have been doing plenty of research about psychological manipulation as I have pointed out in numerous articles including Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association Political Psychologist Are Suppressing Democracy and Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients They've escalated their hype so much that they don't even bother with trying to address issues honestly anymore and now only provide media coverage for incredibly corrupt individuals who collect donations from corrupt corporations and study how to make emotional appeals.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says "no one will be entitled to the media coverage that they need to establish name recognition necessary to have a chance of winning in the election unless they collect money from corporations that want something in return."

That is something the media and multinational corporations came up with on their own; and even though they never phrased it quite that way, that I know of, they demonstrated this with their actions.

Donald Trump promised to "Drain the Swamp," which sounds good to some; and it would be good if he actually meant it. But of course his top advisers have been from the "swamp" all along, including Steve Bannon, a former worker for Goldman Sachs, Jared Kushner, an investor and son of a notorious felon who retaliated against a witness against him by luring to have sex with a prostitute on tape and revealing it, Michael Flynn and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom are lobbyists for foreign governments and working in his transition with top secret information possibly about those countries; Carl Icahn, James Dimon, and he's already using the White House web page to advertise for his business interests according to Rachel Maddow.

He's now promising that he won't allow lobbyists in his cabinet, which is a tactic other previous Presidents have made, and broke or found a way to keep them without abandoning the interests of the lobbyists at the expense of the rest of us. Obama just broke the same promise; however Trump is already using lobbyists in his transition team and might have James Dimon in his cabinet, who may not be a lobbyist but he is one of the leading people hiring them.

He may not hire registered lobbyists but he'll consult with or hire unregistered ones.

These problems were clear long before the election to those that checked the news but he was still able to beat the candidate that he was cheering for. How could she possibly lose to him? How could both nominees possibly be this bad?



With an opponent as obviously incompetent as Donald Trump; it should be incredibly easy to win, which appears to be what they were counting on, since they weren't trying to addressing the concerns of the public at all.

The only way Donald Trump could ever come close to winning is if they put him up against someone as horrible as Hillary Clinton and he did a better job attracting cult followers, which appears to be exactly what they've done.

Instead of rigging it for Hillary Clinton they rigged it for Donald Trump by preventing honest candidates from ever being heard!

Now thanks to the incredible amounts of corruption in both parties we have a president elect that is suing or threatening to sue many people that disagrees with him or are outraged by his behavior including those that claim that his bragging about sexual assault was actually about true events. He's also suing the government for lower taxes, and he may now be in a position to appoint someone settle as both defendant and plaintiff. Lawyers for Melania claim her critics have ‘reckless disregard for the truth.’

Does anyone believe that they're more 'reckless' than her husband during his campaign, or at any other time, for 'the truth?'

Electing Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been much better since he's also been involved in similar activities; however at least with Donald Trump it's so obvious only the most mindless cult follower or people not paying any attention at all wouldn't recognize how corrupt he is.

Gloria Allred To Donald Trump: If You Sue Sex Assault Accusers, We’ll Sue You 11/11/2016

Trump sues the District over tax bill for Old Post Office project 11/11/2016

Megyn Kelly says Donald Trump tried to give her free flights and hotel rooms 11/14/2016

In libel suit, Melania Trump says Maryland blogger held ‘reckless disregard for the truth’ 11/12/2016

Lawsuits Against Donald Trump Unprecedented for President-Elect 11/10/2016









Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl 11/04/2016 Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Donald Trump And Bill Clinton Share A Relationship With Convicted Billionaire Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein 10/15/2016



Barack Obama chose his own legacy as a president who broke almost every campaign promise he ever made and helped elect Donald Trump, perhaps while trying to rig the election for Hillary Clinton, assuming he didn't want to rig it for Trump all along for some inexplicable reason.